Pipe dream? Obamacare

[mrgybe]

[mrgybe]

[mac]

There is an old saying--when you are in a hole, first stop digging. After claiming that the private sector will solve the transportation problems in the United States, mrgybe, as usual when he is rebutted, becomes defensive and doubles down. Missing, of course, the ironic poke and the larger issues.

There is a difference between being well read and simply reposting those things that appeal to your sense of bias--like toll roads as a specific example. There are a number of think tanks out there proposing different approaches to transportation funding, such as the Reason Foundation, a proponent of congestion pricing and toll roads. http://reason.org/areas/topic/311.html I've seen them in conferences since I used to be in the transportation business, and they have both good and bad ideas. I think their insight on congestion pricing is spot on, and it is making traction in governance. The toll road issue is quite another matter.

There is nothing wrong with toll roads if done right, and they can be part of the solutions in crowded urban areas where there is a willingness or capacity to pay for less congestion. But the difficulty is that they are not scalable. What works in high demand/low price elasticity corridors in urban areas doesn't translate to lower demand or high elasticity corridors. There is actually a rich literature on this, which I won't bother to cite. Pushing the 0.2% of roads that are toll roads to 1 or 2% may be the limitations on the concept. A niche, not a magic bullet.

It is analogous to the environmental community thinking that bio-diesel is the solution to transportation. Both are magical thinking without sufficient rigor to understand that the concepts are both niches, and will not scale. In the case of bio-diesel, it is a feel good measure that often ignores the downsides. There is no supply of bio-diesel base materials to serve beyond a niche--perhaps running local garbage trucks. And while bio-diesel is far superior to standard diesel for particulates, it is much worse for NOX. Such magical thinking is akin to making contributions to fight malaria in Africa--and ignoring the role of poverty.

There are no magic bullets.

[mrgybe]

[techno900]

Pueno is now doing some back peddling since he didn't do any research before spouting off about non-profits, just making enough to break even.

I worked for a NON-PROFIT private school (501c3) for 24 years, grades 1-12. They currently have $200,000,000 in endowment. A little better than break even. Of course, the money mostly comes from donations and investments. Operational excess goes to the next year's budget.

[mac]

The hair splitter actually said:

[mrgybe]

If anyone can translate this.........

[pueno]

[mac]

Quite astonishing. He says "nearly all" he says "expect this elsewhere" he says "increasing mobility" for a niche application. Then he says it is unfair to parody his exaggerations. I think he may be typing in English but thinking in Croatian.

[techno900]

The difference between successful non-profits and unsuccessful non-profits is management. They are all businesses, even though many don't think so. Those that don't thinks so are those that often see red.

Our government is a non-profit, but sometimes not too business like. The problem is, most will stay in their jobs regardless of their ineptitude. In real life, non-profits die when resources dry up. Our government keeps right on rolling because they have a never ending supply of $ to keep them moving, regardless of their lack of management/business skills - it's our tax dollars(and borrowed $). They don't have to be good managers, and most voters seem to be blind to their mismanagement. Yes, on both sides of the party lines.

We need government, and no conservative has ever said we don't, but conservatives think we deserve better leaders/managers (fewer too), especially when their ineptitude is often displayed.

The house of cards will fall one day unless we wise up.

pueno said: